MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE vs THE DISTRICT COUNCIL, RAWALPINDI through Administrator_Chief Officer and anothers
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the judgment of the High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's constitutional petition challenging the rejection of his highest bid for the lease of Goods Exit Tax for the year 1995-96 by the Deputy Commissioner/Administrator of the Zila Council, Rawalpindi, and the subsequent ordering of a re-auction in the public interest. The core legal question concerned the validity of the rejection of the petitioner's bid and the order for re-auction. During the hearing, it transpired that a re-auction yielded a substantially higher bid of Rs. 7,31,00,000 compared to the petitioner's bid of Rs. 4,21,00,000. While the petitioner contended the re-auction violated a stay order and was bogus, the Supreme Court directed the Administrator of the Zila Council to proceed with confirmation proceedings for the re-auction in accordance with law and adjourned the petition for further proceedings.
- Whether the competent authority can reject the highest bid for a tax collection lease and order a re-auction in the public interest?
- Can a petitioner challenge the rejection of an auction bid through constitutional jurisdiction when a higher bid is subsequently received in a re-auction?
- Rule 7, Punjab Local Councils (Lease) Rules, 1990
ORDER
1. ' ZIA MAHMOOD MIRZA, J.---Zila Council, Rawalpindi auctioned the lease for collection of Goods Exit Tax for the year 1995-96. Auction was held on 10-7-1995 in which the petitioner, amongst others, participated and gave the highest bid of Rs,4,21,00,000 but it was not accepted by the Deputy Commissioner/Administrator who finding it inadequate ordered re-auction. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner approached the High Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction but with no better result as the learned Judge in the High Court found that the bid of the petitioner was rejected after due consideration and re-auction has been ordered in public interest, in which the petitioner is free to participate. Still dissatisfied, petitioner has filed a petition for leave to appeal in this Court. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned counsel appearing for the District Council/caveator, at considerable length. It has transpired during the course of hearing that in there-auction held on 12-9-1995, the highest bid received was received Rs,7,31,00,000 as against the previous bid of the petitioner for Rs,4,21,00,000. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, inter alia, contended that the re-auction was held in violation of the stay order issued by this Court and the highest bid given therein was bogus and fictitious which was manoeuvred to damage the case of the petitioner pending in this Court. In order to satisfy ourselves about the genuineness of the re-auction and the bona fides of the highest bidder therein, we direct the Administrator of the respondent Zila Council to proceed with the confirmation proceedings in accordance with law and if he confirms the highest bid, the bidder may be asked to deposit 1/10th of his bid money within three days of the confirmation as provided in rule 7, Punjab Local Councils (Lease) Rules, 1990, and also to deposit the first monthly instalment. Petition for leave to appeal is being adjourned for the time being, to 18-10-1995 for further proceedings.